Slashdot Mirror
Plan For World's Largest Wind Farm
ClockworkPlanet writes: "A Hebridean island (North of Scotland) is set to become the global capital of renewable energy with advanced plans for the world's largest onshore wind farm acting as a catalyst to attract wave and tidal power stations. This article spills the juice."
Perhaps this has a different meaning in UK english...
Sounds like a great project, tho. Perhaps if it is a success, they can consider seriously shutting down the N-plant on their east coast that the norwegians keep complaining about.
I wish the article would talk about the technology used in the cable itself as that seems to be the big breakthough that will enable this project. Will it use superconducting technology such as is already being tested in the US and in Denmark? If we can produce 350 mile long undersea cables, then maybe we could harness heat from undersea thermal vents to generate electricity? or perhaps the thermal mass of the great sargassos sea? Or put Oil and Gas fired plants on current offshore drilling platforms so the energy is being transported not the oil and we won't have to worry about another Exxon Valdez disaster.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
From what I understand, the Saharra is a pretty windy place. It also has tonnes of sunshine for the taking. With advancements in superconducting cables(1,2), maybe the deserts of the world might someday soon be an un obtrusive place to put some of these land scape marring reneuable resource adsorbing systems.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
The real penalty would be in transport energy. We currently use oil because it makes fuels which are compact and easily transported. If you convert the fuel to electricity on the platform you have to convert the entire vehicle fleet to batteries, with all the range limitations this implies. You also lose all the flexibility you get with pipelines and storage tanks; if you lose one cable, you can wipe out a large part of the transport network as well as the industry and whatnot. Storable fuels provide a valuable buffer against supply and transport disruptions, and any nation which ignores this in a push to go "green" is risking trouble on a scale which would make California's blackouts look trivial.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
The biggest complaints about wind power seems to be the unsightly appearance of the towers dotting the landscape. Well, why are there not more wind farms in remote places? There are certainly many "remote place" around the world. Is the cost of transporting that power to the places it's needed just too great for this, or is the cost of producing power from wind too great in and of itself? It seems solar power might be simpler since there are no moving parts like a wind turbine. I'm pretty uneducated about this type of thing. What's the general concensus?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
...what we really need is rain power. Roofs covered in tiny hydroelectric turbines, and a dam in every gutter. It's the British answer to solar panels!
you're full of poopoo.
Nuclear power is more expensive more dangerous and more harmful to the environment long term than coal/gas. not to mention about 40% more expensive pkwh (depends who you talk to)
Solar and wind energy should be a bigger focus, but we lack an efficient transport and storage mechanism. We obviously don't have enough of an incentive to develop these technologies. dino-oil is cheap.
Someday when we have a global power grid that efficiently moves energy between the continents, we will be able to produce peak-time energy for the other side of the globe and vice versa. for now i'm happily releasing nasty hydrocarbons to power my computer thankyouveddymuch
You obviously don't believe in global warming, then.
And are you aware that more people die in coal mining accidents each year than have ever died in the Western nuclear power industry? (By saying Western, I am eliminating the Chernobyl incident, which would not have happened if that plant was in the jurisdiction of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.)
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
> rain power. Roofs covered in tiny hydroelectric turbines, and a dam in every gutter.
Good thinking! Though you don't need to dam a water flow to take energy from it - turbines in place and small diversions are sufficient and dont silt up like dams.
Removing coal-fired stations would throw a lot more people out of work. New nuclear plants can be made virtually fail-proof and remain at zero CO2 emission level. Renewable is great, when it can be had and when enough power can be generated. It is far-fetched to imagine replacing nuclear power though.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
I thought we'd finally broken that barrier when NEC announced the proton polymer battery last year; with its power density, freedom from heavy metals, 5-minute charge time and a lifespan in the tens of thousands of cycles, it was a dream come true. Unfortunately, that may have been a flash in the pan. I have been looking for more news about this thing, and found nothing. It just goes to prove that transporting and storing electricity efficiently is hard.
And you're not going to change your habits in case that never comes about. I believe that makes you part of the problem. Quelle surprise.Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
A great topic on it's own, in fact. It's some scary shit to think about how much red mud is backed up behind the Glen Canyon and other major dams that hold back the Colorado river, for example.
A 40 watt-peak solar panel on the roof would be able to run the same light for 8 hours a day, most days. The roof would accomodate quite a few of those panels. You can build your gutter-micro-hydro systems. Please do, I can always use a good laugh!
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
This is what I love about Slashdot, though - people actually do calculate this sort of thing, and come up with interesting results.
I ran the numbers. You were a bit off.
1 cubic foot of water = 28.32 liters.
1 liter of water is about equal to 1 kilogram.
1 kilogram is equal to 2.205 pounds.
That ends up being 156,114 pounds.
Or, in the end, 4.233 mJ/year, 1.1 kilowatt hours. Assuming no losses in conversion, you could run that 20 watt light for close to 59 hours.
Suddenly it becomes practical!
I guesstimated based on 8 pounds/ft^3, forgetting that it should be 8 lb/gallon and roughly 62 lbs/ft^3. I almost posted a correction, but I figured that someone would do it for me.
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist